Christology and apology in Ephrem the Syrian PJ Botha University of Pretoria ABSTRACT Christology and apology in Ephrem the Syrian Christology is an attempt to relate the two natures of Christ; apology on the other hand, has the dual aim of justification and attack; both these entail polar structures. It is argued in this paper that these two binary systems of opposition interfered with each other to a certain extent. This occurred because of the practice of the early church to establish institutional stability and consent via a process of polarisation. The effect of apologetic antitheses on Ephrem’s description of the natures of Christ is investigated. Examples from Ephrem’s work relating to the polarity between the church and Judaism, between the nature of God and Arianism, and between the nature of God and humanity are discussed. 1. INTRODUCTION The first two denominators in the title of this paper are in many ways related. Christology has often been the subject of apologetics, and apologetics in turn can be described as the breeding ground of early Christology. Since the person of Christ stood in the centre of the difficulties pagan thinkers had with Christianity, the early apologists used the Logos concept, which was common to both Platonism and Christianity, to explain the person of Christ to those who were acquainted with Hellenistic philosophy (Carey 1974: 57). It is, however, the structural similarity between Christology and apology that will be focussed upon. Christology, as the result of theological reflection, and ISSN 0259 9422 - HTS 45/1 (1989) 19 Christology and apology apology, as part of the process of that reflection, both entail systems of binary opposition. In its refined form, Christology is an attempt to define the relation between the poles of divinity and humanity in the person of Christ. Apology, on the other hand, has the dual aim of justifying Christian doctrine and at the same time demonstrating the falsity of the opposing viewpoint, be it Judaism, Hellenism or a certain heterodox movement. The word ‘apology’ is here used as an archilexeme for material abstracted from inter alia the contra haereses and adversus ludaeos literature. These works of the church fathers are generally referred to as ‘polemics’, but apologetics and polemics are maninly differentiated with regard to the implied reader. In the fourth century this kind of literature was meant to be read primarily by Christians. Ephrem’s hymns were intended for liturgical use (Bardenhewer 1962: 342, 344) and can therefore not be called polemics, although marked polemical traits are in evidence (cf Botha 1982: 9). Since the aspect of reader criticism is stressed in this paper, it was felt that the term ‘apology’ is to be preferred. The purport now will be to illustrate that the similarity of binary opposition in Christology and apology is no mere coincidence. In the case of Ephrem, the Syrian church father of the fourth century, antithetic Christological formulations seem to reflect the contemporary conflict of the church with dissenters and Jews rather than a normative doctrine. Polemics seem to incur polar thought-patterns. Where polarity is precipitated into Christological formulae, the historic context and the implicit reader should be kept in mind by the modern reader or else apology can be misunderstood as Christology. 2. POLARITY AND STABILITY The writings of the church fathers and the documents of the early church have for a long time been read from a specific perspective. JS Semler, the father of Dogmengeschichte, wrote his major work on the history of dogma as a preface to the systematic theology of SJ Baumgarten. This implied relationship between the history of dogma and systematic theology was unfortunate. Each historical epoch was divided up along dogmatic lines and grouped under doctrinal categories. The assumption underlying Semler’s work was that theology is the rational attempt of Christian thinkers to find intellectual expression of Christian belief (Wilken 1971: 223). It would be more correct to say that theology developed out of a network of concrete decisions the church made in situations of conflict (Vallée 1981: 92). In the process of constituting orthodoxy the search for ‘truth’ or dogma was not the primary concern. As is implied by its name itself, ‘orthodoxy’ was born in the wake 20 HTS 45/1 (1989) PJ Botha of Christianity’s search for its particular identity, and thus was the result of the drive toward a centrist position in order to establish institutional stability (Vallée 1981: 103). The search for an own identity and the effort to establish institutional stability via a centrist position were accompanied by a process of polarisation. The church was continually trying to find a basis of consent and agreement for the mainstream of its subjects (orthodox) and at the same time to identify dissenters (heterodox, hence heretic) from what it regarded as the truth. All disagreement within the church was considered as opposition and such obstruction was severely dealt with. But the early church also had to identify its doctrinal enemies and to depict them in the blackest of terms in order to promote unity and consent within itself. In expressing these polar structures, the early Christian writers found an useful instrument in antitheses. Since antithesis has both a unifying and a disconnecting function (Kraïovec 1984: 140), it seems to be the natural stylistic instrument for purposes of consolidating opinion and urging readers to dissociate themselves from an opposing viewpoint. Where one pole of the antithesis is provided with a negative semiotic value, the reader or listener will not only gain a better understanding of the difference between the two elements, but will also feel himself opposed to the negative pole. In this way the disjunctive-conjunctive power of antithesis is utilised to create a centrifugal-centripetal set of forces around the positive pole: those who feel themselves attached to the positive pole will experience a unifying force, while those who do not share the same conviction, are repelled by it. 3. THE POLARITY Cl IRISTIANITY:: JUDAISM Since the earliest of times, Judaism was such a negative pole which was utilised to establish institutional stability and consent within the church. Anti-Judaism did not primarily serve as a defense against attack, but was an intrinsic necessity of Christian self-affirmation (Ruether 1974: 81). The Marcionite claim of an antithesis between a good God and a Demiurge was countered by Tertullian by contrasting the good God with the inferiority of the Jewish people: the inferiority of God’s old law and cult could not be due to any inferiority on God’s part, but had to be accounted for by the inferiority of the people with whom God was working at the time (Efroymson 1979: 101)! The claim that something radically new had happened when Jesus was resurrected, led Christians to the opinion that Judaism was somehow ‘old’ (Wilken 1971: 228). It was precisely the empirical observation that the Jewish people had not ceased to exist that compelled the church fathers to polemicise against it as being ‘abolished’ (Hruby 1971: 7). But this kind of polemic was also used to gain HTS 45/1 (1989) 21 Christology and apology understanding of the church itself. Christianity was interpreted in relation to Judaism, and Christian tradition knew no other way to view Judaism than as an inferior foreshadowing of Christianity (cf Wilken 1971: 227). The contrast between Judaism and Christianity, between the chosen people and the church of the peoples which was chosen in its place, is already evident in the New Testament itself. For Ephrem the attitude towards God’s Son, Jesus Christ, seemed to be the decisive factor in deciding the claim of both Jews and Christians that they are the true people of God. The rejection of Jesus by the Jews consequently became the basis of a dual polar structure which may be represented as follows (cf Botha 1982: 27-32): Christ rejected :: Christ accepted V r people rejected :: peoples accepted The question why the Jews did reject Jesus had to be answered. The answer is more or less explicitly stated by Ephrem: because they could not, or would not, recognise him as God. This in itself posed the question as to the mystery of Jesus’s divinity. For this reason the above-mentioned polar structure was also related to Christology: Christ rejected :: accepted human appearancer :: divinei • power A comparable pair of related polar structures may be detected in I Corinthians 1: 18-25 where Paul speaks about the offensive nature (to the Jews and gentiles) of the message that Jesus (as God) was crucified, a message that speaks of the wisdom of God for those being called by God. In Ephrem’s collection of hymns De Virginitate 28: 11, he has the following to say: He is the praiseworthy Nature (keyana), which does not change. - But on account of his love He did obtain (qena) changes. - Symbols, types, covered (him) like colours - as well as all likenesses in every way. - The crucifiers saw him and they dishonoured him. - The weeds saw him and alienated him. - The church saw him and, since it recognised 22 HTS 45/1 (1989) PJ Botha is nature, - worshipped (him in) his transformations. In this stanza, the Jews (‘crucifiers’) are contrasted with the church: they dishonoured Christ (since they could not or would not recognise his disguised appearance), while the Church recognised his nature and worshipped him. From this verse it would seem that Ephrem discerned only one nature in Christ, namely that of God, clothed in his human appearance. Ephrem often made use of the imagery of putting on clothes when speaking of the incarnation (cf De Eccles 13: 21, De leiunio 3: 6, Crucif 1: 16, etc).